Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Missing the point. (Score 1) 1013

Oh, I see your problem: you think I'm claiming that users of your hallowed creation[s] are doing the designing. Perhaps you need reading comprehension classes then.

I'm saying users of your HC's are doing the exploiting, the breaking, the every-day-using. They're the ones who are going to hold it upside down. Under water. Backwards. And then turn it on.

When it breaks, it's not the designer's fault, it's the user's "unorthodox" employment that is at fault.

Unless, that is, you've over-designed it, like the grip safeties in the original article, the inventors of which claim that they have reliability down to 99/100 correct fires. Please go consult your local firearms expert and ask them whether 1/100 rounds is a generally acceptable rate for misfires.

Comment Re:Missing the point. (Score 2) 1013

You're everything that is wrong with designers of any stripe. Holy arrogance, Batman!

Seriously, were you intentionally being obtuse? I'm claiming that, in aggregate, yes users will end up knowing your system better than you do, at least if it's used often enough. They will find bugs, they will find exploits, you are not omniscient nor perfect. Your system will have flaws and new and interesting idiots will cause it to fail in new and spectacular ways. The best you can do is minimize the potential for catastrophic failures.

In any event, do you have a link to your design portfolio? I'd like to know precisely which designs, engineering projects, computer OSes, software products or consumer goods to avoid.


Comment Re:Missing the point. (Score 1) 1013

Any system that relies on personal-responsibility is unsafe, since individuals aren't reliable.

Any well designed system doesn't allow for individual actions to break the system.

...Which means you'll have an over-designed system, prone to breaking in really weird and unpredictable ways. No, the answer is to have a strictly causal system in which known, simple actions result in known, "simple" results. It's impossible to design an idiot-proof system, as we know the world excels in producing Grade A idiots.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees